HPI checked a car I've just given a deposit for...

[All that jazz]

swisstoni said:

All that jazz said:

lostkiwi said:

If you have good clear documentation

He does - it's posted earlier in the thread. It states that there was no V5 and the deposit was non-refundable, ergo the magistrate will laugh at him and show him the door.

The finance and security marker have now been cleared as the seller said they would so he now has no reason not to proceed as he knew the V5 was missing before he decided to buy it.

In summary his only options are :

1. Lose £500 and move on.
2. Pay the balance and take the car away.

Disagree. Finance was o/s. Car not owned by seller. Where does it say that in the 'documentation'?

Well you go fight his case for him then if you're so sure. Please do post here what his bank says when you try to do the charge-back and same for the court - I could do with a good laugh.

[Sawyer815]

All that jazz said:

lostkiwi said:

If you have good clear documentation

He does - it's posted earlier in the thread. It states that there was no V5 and the deposit was non-refundable, ergo the magistrate will laugh at him and show him the door.

The finance and security marker have now been cleared as the seller said they would so he now has no reason not to proceed as he knew the V5 was missing before he decided to buy it.

In summary his only options are :

1. Lose £500 and move on.
2. Pay the balance and take the car away.

Exactly what I think (well, excepted point 2, I definitely don't trust this car or this moron anymore). I've been careless and naive on that one. The absence of V5c is written on the signed deposit slip, so I can't use that on court. The mileage discrepancy would not be enough, there is the finance left. It's been paid off since... Honestly, I know (and I think he'd know) that if I take this to court, I might just not win.

The other thing is, apparently, it's £35 to file a claim, BUT if the guy doesn't pay and you have to take him to court, there is another higher fee to pay. AND, if he wins, he can ask for his expenses to be reimbursed by you. And I'd bet this nasty jackass wouldn't hesitate in doing so.

That's why I'll call my bank, ask if by any chance they can do something, potentially I'll call citizenadvice for... well, advice, but if the answers are negative, I'll just move on.

[loskie]

I am not sure what one's statutory right are in such a matter but you are all overlooking the fact that NO MATTER WHAT IS WRITTEN on the invoice it does not absolve the seller of the statutory rights.

OP did you speak to CAB?

[VolvoT5]

All that jazz said:

The finance and security marker have now been cleared as the seller said they would so he now has no reason not to proceed as he knew the V5 was missing before he decided to buy it.

In summary his only options are :

1. Lose £500 and move on.
2. Pay the balance and take the car away.

But I think a judge will also look at what is reasonable. It is not reasonable for the dealer to retain £500 for no good reason, the dealer could argue he has incurred some costs but I think £500 is taking the piss really?

Having said that, I will admit to only just noticing the part in the thread where it states the finance has been cleared. As the main issue was the outstanding finance this makes me wonder why OP doesn't just take the car?

Maybe OP had a bit of buyers remorse in addition to the other concerns. I have to say from the seller's website the car looks pretty tidy if the finance is now squared.

Edited by VolvoT5 on Wednesday 8th July 07:45

[All that jazz]

VolvoT5 said:

But I think a judge will also look at what is reasonable. It is not reasonable for the dealer to retain £500 for no good reason, the dealer could argue he has incurred some costs but I think £500 is taking the piss really?

The judge will (or should) look at the facts, not base his/her ruling on opinion. The facts are -

1. Deposit clearly marked as non-refundable. OP agreed to this. Amount is irrelevant.
2. £500 deposit to secure the car, balance to pay later. OP agreed to this.
3. No V5C present at the time of sale. OP agreed to this.
4. Dealer said that finance had been (or was in process of being) settled. Finance now settled. No argument.
5. Mileage discrepancy on HPI a non-event as it relies on 3rd parties inputting data accurately and historically known to be a guide at best.

[VolvoT5]

All that jazz said:

The judge will (or should) look at the facts, not base his/her ruling on opinion. The facts are -

yeah ok...

[All that jazz]

VolvoT5 said:

All that jazz said:

The judge will (or should) look at the facts, not base his/her ruling on opinion. The facts are -

yeah ok...

Well quite, but yeah, back in the real world and all that.

[lostkiwi]

All that jazz said:

VolvoT5 said:

But I think a judge will also look at what is reasonable. It is not reasonable for the dealer to retain £500 for no good reason, the dealer could argue he has incurred some costs but I think £500 is taking the piss really?

The judge will (or should) look at the facts, not base his/her ruling on opinion. The facts are -

1. Deposit clearly marked as non-refundable. OP agreed to this. Amount is irrelevant.
2. £500 deposit to secure the car, balance to pay later. OP agreed to this.
3. No V5C present at the time of sale. OP agreed to this.
4. Dealer said that finance had been (or was in process of being) settled. Finance now settled. No argument.
5. Mileage discrepancy on HPI a non-event as it relies on 3rd parties inputting data accurately and historically known to be a guide at best.

Agree with all that except point 4.
At the time the buyer backed away from the deal there was still outstanding finance. Legally the seller cannot sell the vehicle without clearing the finance first and even after some time the seller did not appear to have done this as evidenced by the buyer phoning the finance company to verify.
It could therefore be argued the contract was null and void at this point as the seller could not sell the vehicle and comply with the purchaser's statuatory rights. There in no mention of timescales on the document we've seen therefore there may be recourse under unfair contract - ergo the seller would sell the vehicle when it was cleared but that would not fit with the buyers times and the seller failed to notify the buyer of potential delay.
When I went to court in my case the judge made it clear that he would not only look at contract law but also what would be expected by any reasonable person in making a contract.

[Zad]

Yep. At the time of the attempted transaction, the vendor did not own the goods that he was selling.

[TooMany2cvs]

Zad said:

Yep. At the time of the attempted transaction, the vendor did not own the goods that he was selling.

Oooh, that starts to get a bit all-encompassing... Care to define "own"?